Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Move Over Apple - Samsung Files For a Patent On Page Turn

Posted by samzenpus on from the here-I-am-on-the-road-again-there-I-am-up-on-the-stage dept.

Nate the greatest writes "Remember last year when Apple received a patent on the faux page curl in iBooks? Lots of people laughed at the idea that Apple could patent the page turn, but not Samsung. The gadget maker has just filed for their own page turn patent. The paperwork explains in great detail what the page turn looks like, how the software would work, and what on screen gestures could be used to turn the page."

30 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Next patent application ... by stevez67 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the "on" button. Because no one has ever pressed an on button before. No one has turned a page. No one ever thought to make a phone a rectangle with rounded edges. The only ones these ideas are novel to are the nitwit patent attorney's who convince companies to pay them to file this crapola lol. But ... I'm sure there's an app for that.

  2. If I were by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I were getting beat up by a competitor for what I consider stupid patents I would start filing stupid patents to fight back as well.

    all this does is show once again that the patent system needs work.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:If I were by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here. They are the ones who keep filling for horribly dumb lawsuits. So blame Samsung, blame apple, blame their attorneys if you want but don't blame a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations.

      It's a case of dumb and dumber really. In the end though, I'm not so worried about the one writing up this junk, I'm more worried about those approving it. Who's dumber really, the one who made the fail, or the one who fully endorses it?

    2. Re:If I were by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AC's response is kinda messed up.

      I don't entirely agree with you, but it has been pointed out that some "rights holders" have bought up patents as a defense against being sued by patent trolls. So yeah, it makes sense, in a way, to file for trivial patents as a defense against other trivial patents.

      It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce, get together, and lobby for patent reform - along with copyright reform.

      The system is most definitely broken. I don't think that Samsung is taking the "best" approach to fixing the real problem - not by a long shot.

      We need an analogy here, I think. A housing developer built on some low lying land, in a "classy" area of town. All the in-crowd bought his houses - that is, the "rights holders bought homes in the subdivision. The city's sewer system backs up onto these properties. Samsung's "fix" here, is to add three inches of topsoil to their own property to keep the sewerage from running onto their own property. Of course, that does nothing about the sewerage running in the streets, or on their neighbor's yards. The whole neighborhood still stinks to high heaven, and it's an unhealthy place to live.

      It's time for the subdivision to partner with government, and get the damned sewer system fixed, and get the crap out of everyone's neighborhoods!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:If I were by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all.

      There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations. The PTO grants a massive amount of patents that should be invalid, as proven time again in the courts. The cost to invalidate a patent is in the millions, but the cost to file and receive a patent is in the hundreds. They don't take responsibility and readily put forth the fact the standard for granting a patent is far below the stated requirements, so the courts are weary to just invalidate a patent -- believing that the patent office is actually doing it's job well, when in reality they'll let you patent essentially anything: If you want a weak patent that won't hold up in court, they're cool with that so long as you pay your fees, cross your t's, dot your i's, and replace all the terms such that the application won't generate any hits when searched in their patent database. First to File means that patent application secrecy is needless -- If you're filling a patent it should be public knowledge so we can protest anything that is obvious / file our prior art. Yes, it would take longer and be more expensive to grant patents, but just make those filing for the patents pay the bills; This would bring the cost of patents up closer to their actual cost -- No, instead it's basically a government subsidy for legal warheads.

      Furthermore: Patents are not required to spurn innovation. Demand for innovation exists regardless of patents, and will generate drive for innovation by basic market forces regardless of granting monopolies. Look at the Automotive and Fashion industries -- Neither of which have design patents or copyright, and yet design is their core sales point, and they are very innovative in design. Patents and Copyright merely enforce artificial scarcity, when the artists and researchers could just as easily make their money without patents: Simply withhold their labor unless agreement to be payed for it is ensured (like car mechanics and home builders do, it's a proven system). If there are those who would not invest without monopoly assurances afterwards then those who will invest in research regardless will out compete them -- As proven by stagnant companies doing poorly in the automotive and fashion design industries compared to those who innovate without promise of monopoly. Anyone who fears Trade Secrecy / Trade Unions locking up innovation has never met a reverse engineer from this century. We strip layers off of microchips to discover their wiring at the nano scale. We have spectrograms and readily derive the secret recipes for foodstuffs and medicines -- Hence the generics market existing. It's not economically feasible for secrets to exist in consumer products today, you can't hide the molecules and machine code from me (and yes, I do read and write fluently in machine code).

      We have NO EVIDENCE that the patent system is fulfilling its goals. We don't know if it's harmful or not, but there are indications that point to it being harmful (frivolous patent lawsuits and bogus patents), and there are at least two data points that indicate patents are not required at all. The real problem with the patent system is that we did not do a test to see if it was beneficial. Everyone just assumes it is without ANY evidence to support their claims. We need to do the experiment and abolish patents to see if they were harmful or helpful. We can re-institute the laws if we need to later. Continuing to operate the world's economy on assumptions of untested hypothesis is egregiously intellectually and economically negligent. That patents exist at all with no proof they're beneficial is the problem. That problem can not be fixed until we've abolished patents.

      If you assert that there are no problems with the patent system then I must point out: Ignorant people like you, who operate based merely on assumptions without any evidence to back their claims, are the problem.

    4. Re:If I were by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here. They are the ones who keep filling for horribly dumb lawsuits. So blame Samsung, blame apple, blame their attorneys if you want but don't blame a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations.

      So if you want to blame something for a problem them blame those directly responsible for the problem instead of pointing your fingers at an invisible boogie man or some abstract idea.

      By your own logic Samsung and Apple can not be blamed. They are only "filling for horribly dumb lawsuits" because they are "a completely unbiased set of rules and regulations" -- They are artificial amoral corporate entities, and they must act the way they do because the rules say they must do so or be held accountable by their shareholders: Profit by any means is why they do this.

      So, why don't you heed your own advice and "blame those directly responsible for the problem instead of pointing your fingers at an invisible boogie man or some abstract idea" of corporate personhood?

      You're the kind of guy who cries "Cheater!" and blames the AI for following the rules of the game.

    5. Re:If I were by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would be better though, if all the legitimate big players in the patent games would just declare a truce

      They did try that but Apple and a bunch of random patent trolls wouldn't play ball. In Apple's case it is because they don't have any valuable technology patents, only daft design patents on rounded corners and the like. Even if there was a truce Apple would still need to license tech patents under FRAND terms, but no-one needs their patent on page curling.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:If I were by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations.

      There's a difference between "there is no test for obviousness" and "I don't know what the test for obviousness is," and they should not be used interchangeably when you mean the latter. The Examiner can make a prima facie case that a claimed invention is obvious by showing that one or more pieces of prior art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element in the claim. So, if a claim recites A+B+C and the Examiner can show one piece of prior art that teaches A+B and another that teaches C, and they can be combined without undue experimentation or changing their functions, then the claim is obvious. If, on the other hand, the Examiner can't find anything that teaches C anywhere, then the claim is not obvious.

      Happy to help clarify that for you.

      Now, to clear up a few other things you say:

      The cost to invalidate a patent is in the millions, but the cost to file and receive a patent is in the hundreds.

      It costs about $25k to file and prosecute a patent to issue, not "hundreds". And they can be invalidated for just a few hundred via post grant review.

      First to File means that patent application secrecy is needless -- If you're filling a patent it should be public knowledge so we can protest anything that is obvious / file our prior art.

      That doesn't change anything, as all patent applications were published under the first-to-invent system, too, and the public could protest by submitting prior art to the Examiner.

      Look at the Automotive and Fashion industries -- Neither of which have design patents or copyright, and yet design is their core sales point, and they are very innovative in design.

      Here are tens of thousands of design patents in the automotive industry. And here are thousands of design patents on dresses. A search for design patents on "jeans" will turn up a similar number, as will socks, shoes, etc. Your premise is demonstrably false.

      Anyone who fears Trade Secrecy / Trade Unions locking up innovation has never met a reverse engineer from this century. We strip layers off of microchips to discover their wiring at the nano scale.

      Yes, but without patents, there would be more efforts to protect trade secrets - like you wouldn't actually ever own a physical microchip to strip it apart. You'd merely be renting it under a lease agreement, with massive liquidated damages if you do damage it. Do you really want to have to have a subscription to use your computer? I don't.

      We have spectrograms and readily derive the secret recipes for foodstuffs and medicines -- Hence the generics market existing.

      Actually, the generics market exists because of patent disclosures and the FDA orange book. Would you buy a "generic" reverse engineered version of a brand new medicine that the FDA hadn't approved, much less tested?

      It's not economically feasible for secrets to exist in consumer products today, you can't hide the molecules and machine code from me (and yes, I do read and write fluently in machine code).

      Watch out, Slashdot, we've got a badass over here.

    7. Re:If I were by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      So it's awful when Apple does it, but when Samsung does the exact same thing, it's a completely justified defensive measure.

      Nope, you're not wearing any blinders at all.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  3. OBVIOUS! by chromaexcursion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.

    1. Re:OBVIOUS! by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Money.

    2. Re:OBVIOUS! by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In all fairness, how can they deny Samsung a bullshit patent, when they have granted Apple so many bullshit patents?

    3. Re:OBVIOUS! by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 2

      why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.

      Part of the problem is that 'obvious' has gained a special meaning in this context, partly as a result of case law, and that meaning is not the obvious one. Lawyers aren't paid to be reasonable.

    4. Re:OBVIOUS! by s.petry · · Score: 2, Informative

      The telephone, calculus, and the special theory of relativity were all made or discovered very close to each other.

      Not to be a dick, but you should check your facts before posting. Calculus predates the telephone and theory of relativity by a couple thousand years. If you are referring to infinitesimal calculus, then you are still off by at least a couple hundred years. Here is a reference.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:OBVIOUS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he was referring to three examples of the same idea being discovered twice at around the same time in each case. E.g. Calculus (Newton and Leibniz), and the telephone (Bell and Swan) are classic examples. I don't know of anybody else working on relativity at the same time as Einstein, but considering the explosion in theoretical physics at the time (e.g. quantum mechanics) it is unlikely that relativity would have remained undiscovered for long.

      The point is an important one: great discoveries would happen anyway, we cannot assume that a patent system makes them more likely.

  4. My theory by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the issue seems to be that the patent officials either

    A - dont spend even 1 second and just stamp it if it comes from a known company
    or
    B - the patent officers dont understand what they are looking at, yet dont want to sound stupid, so they stamp it

    at least thats my theor

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:My theory by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      The problem is patent officers aren't masters in individual fields of study to be able to determine if something is "obvious". A patent officers approval doesn't necessarily mean that the patent isn't obvious or even not already patented. That's a job for the courts and submitter. There is supposed to be a level of restraint on the submitter to not post something obvious in their field and to do diligence in ascertaining whether or not a patent should be granted for their idea or if there are existing patents that cover the idea.

      The sad thing about this is the general mentality these days of the submitter intentionally not doing these duties for deniability reasons so companies can amass more and more patents.

    2. Re:My theory by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field. I think that right there would help quite a bit. there is no reason someone who went to school for cooking but gets the qualifications and becomes a patent officer should have any reason saying yes or no to something such as computer systems / hardware or engine design etc.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:My theory by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      I think the easiest way to start to fix this would to be to hire masters of different fields to handle patents of said field. I think that right there would help quite a bit. there is no reason someone who went to school for cooking but gets the qualifications and becomes a patent officer should have any reason saying yes or no to something such as computer systems / hardware or engine design etc.

      That's a brilliant idea... We could have a classification system wherein patent applications are sorted by area of technology and assigned to patent units with specialized Examiners who are skilled in those fields to apply prior art and test for obviousness. We can call them "art units".

  5. Re:Flash by unrtst · · Score: 2

    Oh, I remember how the faux page curl seemed so novel for 5 minutes on Flash sites.

    Doesn't matter... that was WAY before Flash worked "on a cell phone".

  6. Last refuge of the incompetents by Progman3K · · Score: 2

    When you have nothing left to say and have no innovation, you patent something very obvious.

    clap...
    clap...
    clap...

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:Last refuge of the incompetents by Artea · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid "Simulating applause through an electronic device" is patented, you owe me royalties.

  7. I know, I know by Frankie70 · · Score: 4, Informative

    why do patent inspectors spend more than 2 seconds on dreck like this before denying it.

    Because lawyers then write them nasty letters. This was covered a couple of days back - please pay attention - http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/04/29/1216254/lawyer-loses-it-in-letter-to-patent-office

  8. Just Apple is to blame by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Samsung and apple in this case are to blame here.

    No, only Apple is to blame. If somebody punches you in the face, and you hit back, are you to blame?

    Samsung is only defending itself against a scummy patent bully.

    1. Re:Just Apple is to blame by schnell · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, only Apple is to blame.

      Well, thank goodness we finally have that sorted out. Has anyone informed the Supreme Court that "walterbyrd" on Slashdot has determined the root of this multinational, multi-claim nest of lawsuits involving hundreds of patents between Google/Motorola, Samsung and Apple is that "only Apple is to blame?" I'm pretty sure we can just put this whole thing to bed now.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  9. Re:"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Remember Apple started playing this game when someone sued THEM

    Difference is: Apple's patents are pure bullshit, and Apple only sues over their bullshit patents because Apple is scamming the system.

    Not *all* patent lawsuits are scams. Some patents are entirely legitimate. Apple is the master of junk patents, and scam lawsuits.

  10. Re:Don't you think its wrong though by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > Don't you think its wrong though that Apple spends billions of dollars and then have someone else come along and copy it

    Like what? What great invention - that Apple spend billions of dollars on - was stolen from Apple? Please be very specific.

  11. Gonna get sued by Apple. by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not for infringing the "page turning" patent - for infringing on their patent of "a method to use the US Patent Office for anti-competitive business tactics".

  12. How is this not a case or prior art? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    This reminds me of the patent that was granted (and later revoked) for the method of swinging on a swing. http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
    So I'm forced to ask the obvious. How is virtual page turning novel and unique compared to doing it with paper?

  13. Stupid ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    This is yet another "patent on a digital analog to a well known physical process" patent. You know, "a system and methodology for doing something we've done for centuries, but on a computer".

    People have been turning pages in books for a very long time. It's a well understood process.

    I seriously doubt that there's any real technical innovation or invention in using existing touch-screen technology to make it look like you're doing something which is already well known for physical books.

    It's a visual metaphor, nothing more. I don't think Apple should have been granted a patent, and I don't think Samsung should.

    These kinds of patents are ridiculous.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.